Berkeley Backs Off On Banning Marines

M

Mach II Sailor

Moderator
http://www.nbc11.com/news/15245031/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

As six Republican senators devised a plan to yank $2.3 million in federal funding for Berkeley programs, the mayor of the famously liberal city apologized Wednesday for his hard stance against a Marine recruiting center.

Two City Council members vowed to soften their stance as well.
Click to expand...

i knew those liberal sunzab!tchs would back off when they saw the possibility of $2.3million going to a better cause.., good for you six Republican senators :D
 
Thank goodness for the low thresholds of scrutiny with respect to the spending power to reign in these nutjobs, as well as for people with common sense to put them in their place. You don't like the military? Fine, let's put a big wall up around your voting district and make it an amnesty zone that anyone from anywhere can get into without background checks or security. Not like we didn't know what they were in Berkeley, and I deliberately say what, not who... but the audacity :barf: Lucky for them the Marines are far more dignified and cognizant of their image, but for CNN I'd love to see an old fashioned butt-kicking when Code Pink is outside their office.
 
Their Right

I remember feeling really lucky when I went to boot camp in the late eighties down at Parris Island. My uncle had served in the Army in Vietnam and I come from a long line of Naval Officers so it was a big surprise when I joined The Corps, only the second in my family to ever do so. I felt lucky because the Sgts., Staff Sgts. and Gunnies that trained me were Privates and PFCs and Lance Corporals in Vietnam, had heard shots fired in anger, knew what good training meant to our survival. The heavy of our platoon was a tall, distinguished Dark Green Marine Gunny who'd served two tours in Vietnam, talked like Edward G. Robinson and was hard as nails. Gunny Knox, thank you wherever you are (I know from Leatherneck magazine that it is now Sgt. Major Knox!)

Near the end of boot, back then, you did a short week 'in the field' for Basic Warrior Training (BWT) which we later dubbed Big Waste of Time since further training showed it was a scant introduction to warfare. One night, maybe the last night, Gunny Knox was talking to us about what it was like to come home from Vietnam proud of his service, thankful to be alive, grieving inside for his dead buddies. He saw hippies in the airport and on the streets, calling him a baby killer and more. I'll never forget the gist of the words he spoke then, something to the effect of:

"You'll maybe get the same treatment sometime, back from some God-forsaken s***hole, a Hell on Earth. Your home now; momma, comfort, no half mad sons of b****es trying to kill you, there's hot chow and warm water and real racks, beer!, ice cream!....then some snug, safe, judgmental lowlife calls you a baby killer. Here's the thing: we have to protect these ignorant bast***s even when we maybe would like to gut them! That's our job. Catching bullets for the ungrateful, the unknowing, the disinterested. Get used to it, it's the job."

Jack Nicholson did a pretty good job of explaining it in the trial scenes of "A Few Good Men" but Gunny Knox made it way more real for us. They get to act like they do in Berkeley because I did what I did, because all the vets here and everywhere did and do. It's the job.
 
I grew up very close to Berkeley and hung out there as much as I could. I still live close to it today. Now, while I would describe myself as a left anarchist (social libertarian), I am here to tell you that I have never, nor will I ever fault the military or its members for being told to do a thankless job by a bunch of self-interested, corrupt, power-hungry elitists. The abuse and misuse of the military by this country's governments since its inception has nothing to do with the original purpose, nor with character of the fine individuals who have chosen to make the sacrifice of serving. I do not fault them for being the tool used for what (to me) is bad policy. And it makes me sick that they are treated so badly firstly by the government and secondly by a bunch of neo-liberals. They deserve much better.

That said, when I was a young kid, I remember reading about Vietnam veterans and I was captivated by their experiences both there and when they returned home. I was appalled to learn of their treatment when they got back. It wasn't too far after that when it seemed that the knowledge of this travesty became more well known and sympathy abounded. And it seemed that generally, people were much less hostile towards military personnel. Sadly this is waning. And there is no excuse. Again, this is coming from someone far on the left (not the technically the same as a "liberal", especially using today's definition). So please understand that these neo-liberals do not represent all those opposed to this government's policies, especially when they behave inexcusably. I support the protests against this war, whole-heartedly...but I will never support the actions of some idiot who plays the populist card to feed the frenzy of mistreatment for the sake of appearances.
 
Strange. The bad treatment the Viet Nam vets received when coming home has reversed itself. There are any number of "posers" claiming to be decorated Nam vets. Some of them are in jail, as it is now a federal offense to claim false "hero status"... :rolleyes:
 
i knew those liberal sunzab!tchs would back off when they saw the possibility of $2.3million going to a better cause.., good for you six Republican senators
Click to expand...

To heck with 'em! Does anyone think they'll change their tune? Not hardly.

They oughta yank the funding anyway!
 
The miraculous change of heart experienced by the Mayor and two city council members was purchased for $2.3 million by the Feds.

This does not satisfy me in the least. The repugnant principles remain; they’re only quieted for now.
 
Cut their money anyway. Just because a coyote drops a chicken in its mouth on the way out of the coop doesn't mean it doesn't magically make it undeserving of a good blast to the hide.
 
Being in a service business, I learned early on that money speaks louder than words. It's amazing how it clarifies the situation. So good going for those senators. That said, I wonder what we are funding anyway or why. And if just Berkley costs that much, how much are we spending nationwide?
 
that's great news

This is truly great news! Recruiting is hard enough without disinformation specialists running around making noise.
I was a Marine recruiter in Portland, Oregon (94-97)-we were banned from the schools for the same alleged reason. Truth be told, I doubt it was truly about our "discrimintory (sp?) hiring policies" (actully they're the federal Governments), rather there's a group of people out there that just don't like the military or what we stand for. Too bad. We'll keep defending them just the same.
It makes me sick that they would back down so quickly, with the only reason being apparently money. It appears now that cash is far more important than ideals to this group of so-called "enlightened" progressives. I had a tiny bit of respect for them for standing up for something they believed in (although I don't agree with it)-but the cut and run at first threat says something about their character and commitment. Sorta like the bad guys over here-they won't attempt to hit a target that may fight back-they'd rather go for the easy, dramatic, but ultimatly ineffective (in the big picture) kills. Their tactics will only turn the average Joe on the street against them.

Sgt Fathead-is that SgtMaj Knox still on active duty? If he's who I'm thinking of, he was my OccField Monitor (0369) several years ago, and was my next door neighbor in Okinawa in '04-'05-I think he's still on the Rock--Small Corps......

Scott
MSgt USMC
Al Anbar, Iraq
 
The miraculous change of heart experienced by the Mayor and two city council members was purchased for $2.3 million by the Feds.

This does not satisfy me in the least. The repugnant principles remain; they’re only quieted for now.
Click to expand...

2.3 million collected from the citizens of Berkeley. Considering their average median income, I have a hard time thinking that money wasn't coming out of their own pockets.

So do we only favor using federal money to dictate local policies when we agree with the end result, or are we okay with this in general?

EDIT: An example, just for fun...withholding federal funds (taken from a state's citizens, mind you) if states don't raise their drinking age to 21, thus creating a de facto federal drinking age: good thing or bad thing?
 
Last edited:
fascinating

it seems that sometimes the federal government committing what is essentially extortion against the states is cause for some of y'all to cheer unless it happens to be a topic you agree with

I wonder what you'd say if the government was threatening to withhold money from some little town in Texas or Arkansas because they wouldn't allow the Brady Campaign to protest in front of City Hall.
 
MSgt. Scott, I believe he may well be on active duty. I saw his picture about a year ago in a then recent issue of Leatherneck and was pleased to see it. You'd know him; spoke exactly like Edward G. Robinson in a classic, "See, you guys, see...this is how we're going to do it!" Always wore his Gabardine dress green Class A trousers up to the bottoms of his pockets, walked with a very precise, erect carriage. I believe he served in Vietnam as, of all things, a tanker.

I agree with other posters, the funding should be yanked anyway. Equating military recruitment to a form of harassment is, to my way of thinking, not only dishonorable but treasonous. Did our forefathers turn away when the call was made? Hell no! When Hitler was on the rise and the U.S. entered the fray, was recruiting harassment? Hell no! The evil we face now, militant radical fundamentalist Islamists, is no less a threat than Adolf's dark poison. I said it before, I'll post it again; I miss those Corps days fondly, the dark days of dead friends and the glory days all together. I wish the bugle was still sounding for me. A blessing and eternal thanks to all who serve.
 
Fine, let's put a big wall up around your voting district and make it an amnesty zone that anyone from anywhere can get into without background checks or security.
Click to expand...

This entire country is already like that. Minus the wall.
 
So using federal funds to extort compliance with a politically correct agenda is A OK?
Click to expand...

If it's against people you don't like, it would appear so.

If we were talking about a town in Alabama, and a cause that the folks in here (the ones who are so happy about this) agree with, I think the tune would be much different. And before anybody comes up with one of the many times in the past that this has already happened (I already gave one: the drinking age) and starts crying about it, I'll go ahead and pre-emptively state that that I didn't agree with it then either.

If the federal government can't justify their involvement in local policy using the Constitution (including the 14th amendment) and the court system, then they shouldn't interfere. They certainly shouldn't be taking money from a locality's citizens, then holding it ransom until that locality passes the laws they want.

Hell, at this point we may as well just do away with state and local governments and set all policy nationally. Alternately, we could allow those governments to remain and set routine policy, but just allow Congress to change it at will. Do away with the "funding theatre" entirely, and streamline the process.

I'm sure a few people here are thinking that in this case that'd be just fine with them...but I wonder what they'd think when this power was used against Ottawa, KS instead of Berkeley, CA.
 
Well, they already do that with the drinking age, among other things. For some reason or another we the people haven't gone after them for that yet.
 
Well I'm getting the feeling after looking in here it's because we the people are more than happy with it when it suits our needs.
 
Notwithstanding sensationalism in the media ("Berkeley Backs Off On Banning Marines"), exactly what was Berkeley doing?

The letter said that the recruiting center was not welcome on Shattuck Avenue and that the Marines were uninvited and unwelcome intruders.
Click to expand...

So the Marines are not Berkeley's favorite folks - as though that was a big surprise. If Berkeley's city council wants to say that, it seems to fall within the realm of freedom of speech. I wonder how many people really want Congress to use the power of federal funding to silence dissenting opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top